All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:16:38
Need to Know (20 April 2021) with Michael Ivey and Chris Weinert
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer in Madison, Wisconsin, where I'm delighted to be joined today by Michael Ivey from Asheville, North Carolina, and Chris Weinerk from Detroit, Michigan.
We're here to bring you all the news you need to know.
Needless to say, the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the jury is in deliberation.
It looks very tough to get a conviction here.
The defense argued bystanders distracted Chauvin at a critical moment.
But we know a tremendous amount of what was going on there, that George Floyd had consumed an excessive quantity of drugs.
He was trying to conceal evidence.
He himself said that he ate too many drugs.
Multiple prosecution witnesses testified they believe Floyd died from a lack of oxygen.
Due to Chauvin's restraint for more than nine minutes, but the fact is that's virtually impossible because there's a carotid artery on both sides of the neck, so pressing one wouldn't interfere with the other.
Not only that, but the judge declared they could not claim the knee was on the neck, that it was only in the area of the neck.
And the drugs that he had would cause his respiratory system to shut down, so he could have died from a lack of oxygen because of the drug dose.
There's clearly an alternative explanation that is reasonable, which in my judgment makes it impossible to convict Chauvin beyond a reasonable doubt.
Attorney Nelson, defense attorney, said evidence showed Chauvin was following his training as a police officer during his interaction, which is also the case.
Meanwhile, Mad Maxine has come to rouse rabble.
It's very embarrassing.
Maxine talked about confrontation there that we've got to speak out.
It was pretty disgusting.
Pelosi nevertheless was apologetic that Waters should not apologize for saying protesters should get more confrontational if Chauvin were to be acquitted.
No, she doesn't.
When asked if Waters should apologize, absolutely not.
Asked if her comments incited violence.
On the contrary, they did appear to incite violence, and even the judge As observed that Waters' confrontational protest remarks could fuel an appeal.
The judge criticized recent comments by Representative Maxine Waters, said her words could cause a trial to be overturned on appeal.
The California Congresswoman Long, a lightning rod, already facing a torrent of criticism for her comments over the weekend, urging protesters in Minnesota to get more confrontational if Chauvin is not committed.
Chauvin's lawyer asked the judge to declare mistrial, arguing she had prejudiced the jury.
He denied the request but admitted, stated, her comments were abhorrent and said she may have handed the defense a lifeline anyway.
I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in the whole trial being overturned.
Judge Cahill said his arguments in the case concluded Monday and the jury began its deliberations.
Well, in my opinion, the most probable outcome is a hung jury.
There are going to be some who are convinced that he is guilty, others who are convicted he's innocent, but the fact of the matter is you won't be able to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt either way because two alternative explanations are reasonable.
Michael, your thoughts?
This goes back to the previous conversation we had about this case, and that is, every time I want to get into the weeds of the evidence of the case, sitting in the back of my mind is this thought, is this whole thing real or not?
Since we have pretty much established that the incident itself was not real, that would strongly augur toward the position that the trial isn't either.
But setting aside that distinct possibility, the evidence itself is the very definition of reasonable doubt, that it's not certain at all whether Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death, and when there are much more likely reasons that are in evidence, for like his having swallowed a bunch of drugs to prevent the cops from finding them, and nor Have I heard any evidence at all.
This is, this doesn't go to guilt or innocence, but nor have I heard any evidence at all about any form of racial motivation in the incident.
We'll see what happens.
You know, you have to ask the question, are we still living in a country, or to what extent, in which the rule of law applies?
Or is that just being held together, sort of like the political system, like theater?
Relative to Maxine Waters, I want to say what a pathetic excuse for a human being.
She's a disgusting, race-baiting, popular figure, and she says she asked the rioters to become more confrontational, like more than the already rampant destruction and burning of buildings and people getting killed.
What does more confrontational than that mean?
I also liked, besides the other representative, Marjorie Taylor Greene, I understood, introduced a motion to have her expelled from Congress.
Well, Maxine lives in a million dollar mansion outside of her district.
That speaks volumes about her.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yeah, I don't even understand why vaccine waters is really so relevant in this conversation.
She shouldn't really have such a strong opinion or even encourage such a strong reaction for a minority in terms of, say, what a court determines in terms of justice or even, let's say, in terms of serving a minority and rioting in the lack of complete capitulation to the throes of the minorities, I should say.
So like they said with BLM and Antifa during the COVID thing, you know, that was irrelevant.
COVID was just a temporary thing to get everybody locked down and then they just took a break from that and then made it all about racism and then they went back to the COVID thing when that thing was proven to be what it was, you know, another FBI COINTEL operation.
So it's kind of interesting to see these people that are doubling down on these type of deceptions.
I don't know much about the Floyd case, I just know how full of shit the people are that are really trying to make a sensational, radical, racist case about this.
And I have to say that really, that's really all you should look at and need to know.
I think what they're doing here is a selective presentation of half-truths that are designed to provoke a limbic reaction from certain demographics on each side, and it's certainly not an accident.
And the people that are putting those people out to create this theater are certainly robbing us all blind and really trying to turn us against each other in the midst of it.
Yeah, I think that's all spot on.
Meanwhile, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom we were told was smashed over the head with a fire extinguisher, actually suffered from strokes and died of natural causes, where the Capitol Hill Democrat narrative spinning is falling apart piece by piece by piece.
The ruling released Monday will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer's death, where two men were accused of assaulting him by spraying a powerful chemical irritant at him during the siege.
But prosecutors have not tied that exposure to his death.
Stuff that suffered two strokes at the base of the brainstem caused by a clot in an artery that supplies blood to that area of the body.
The pathologist said he could not comment on whether he had a pre-existing medical condition, citing privacy laws.
In the days after the riot, police and a Justice Department official attributed Ziknik's death to his efforts to contain the riot.
The Democrats claimed, of course, he was killed by the rioters, claiming he'd been struck by the fire extinguisher.
The Times later updated its story, saying there was no evidence of blood force trauma.
But exactly what caused his death remained unclear for more than 14 weeks, meaning the Democrats were milking it for its political benefits, even though they almost certainly knew better much earlier on.
Christopher Macchiaroli, a former federal prosecutor, said a ruling of death by natural causes does make it more difficult to bring a homicide prosecution.
I mean, give us a break!
Any defense attorney would use the medical examiner's conclusions as clear-cut evidence of reasonable doubt.
I mean, the idea that they're even talking about A homicide prosecution is absurd and shows the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go in reckless disregard of the facts, the evidence, actual causation.
Just disgusting.
They're on a propaganda binge and they won't let it go.
Michael, your thoughts?
Well, that's exactly it.
It's a propaganda binge, and I'm not sure when it started or when it's going to end.
That's the Another key element of their original Capitol insurrection narrative that has collapsed.
The first one being the New York Times having admitted that the congressional security was ordered to stand down that came out a few days ago.
You know, first they made up the hit by a fire extinguisher story for this guy having died.
And that turned out to be a complete lie.
I'm just happy the The medical examiner has the integrity to tell the truth like that.
And then they shifted to this mace in the face story, and now that's a lie.
So that gives you the trajectory of the propaganda right there.
Yeah, it's very disgusting, really.
The Democrats just lie and cheat and steal, meaning theft of the election.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yeah, I truly agree.
The truth seems to be completely irrelevant in the face of a political opportunity, I have to say.
And what they're doing here with this guy and the stroke reminds me of what they're doing with COVID and the flu.
So it's really not much of a different stretch.
They're trying to push something in terms of a reaction, problem and reaction solution.
And I think that really a solution is more the thing you got to look at instead of the problem or the reaction in some cases.
I think that they're really trying to lock us down, take our guns.
Like I told you a few months ago back in November, I said that every day there will be another shooting in the Biden administration until they get our guns.
And that's just really to prevent any sort of citizen recourse against this tyranny, this technocratic hostile takeover.
And I think that they're using some weapons against the citizenry that are unknown to the citizens and they're ascribing these afflictions to, let's just say, unrelated medical diagnoses.
In the cases of COVID or some of these respiratory illnesses, you know, you talked about fentanyl in the Floyd George case.
Think about that.
I mean, that in itself is killing so many people and it's not even talked about.
It's worse than the opioid epidemic and it's not an accident.
This stuff is coming in.
And people are putting this on the streets and doing this to people, and it's not an accident.
So, I think there's a lot of stuff at play, whether you're talking chemtrails, which are supposedly conspiracy theory, nanometals that come out of there, 5G rollouts, troubles breathing, people being put on ventilators, an economic incentive to do this, of course.
Man, there's a lot of interesting stuff that's going on in this day and age where people's lives are being taken, and this whole process is is an industrialized endeavor and they're really trying to
use these theaters as a means of distraction. We focus all our energy on on these irrelevant
things while this major stuff is going on and it's not even being looked at or even talked about.
Nice, very nice points.
Meanwhile, Oregon newspaper Man Fatally Shot by Police was white so there was no reason to riot.
An Oregon newspaper included the race of a white man fatally shot by police in its coverage, then clarified it felt his race was important in light of social unrest prompted by police shootings of black people.
Recent shootings include Daunte Bright, who was killed by police in a Minneapolis suburb earlier this week, and two killings in Clark County in recent months, nodding to the fact that those fatal shootings sparked rioting, looting, and other destruction.
Hours after it was published, however, the Oregonian deleted the paragraph, And the tweet, quoting it after the paper claimed the original statement, was poorly worded.
In the original story, they reported Portland police fatally shot a white male in his 30s after they received calls someone at a public park had a gun.
The man's race, they claim, was important because of the current social climate.
With which I would, by the way, happen to agree.
The new paragraph instead states there have been several high-profile fatal police shootings of black men, but the victim in this case was a white man in his 30s.
Despite their attempt to frame this story by clarifying his race to avoid social unrest, crowds still gathered at the park to condemn the deadly shooting.
Their cries for justice now were met with a dozen officers who had donned riot gear.
Police told protesters over a loudspeaker to leave the area or risk arrest.
I like that because it suggests they're actually cracking down on all of these protests.
No need to write on this one, he was white.
This is some of the tweets about it.
The police killed a man, he was white, so you don't need to come and riot.
He was white.
No need to riot.
Meanwhile, the Obamas inflame racial tensions by attacking the police.
Former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, who actually is a man with breast implants and a huge shaving bill, have been accused of inflaming racial tensions many times over the last decade.
Conservatives believe the racial divide became worse under his last term.
In 2017, Breitbart reported every time Obama got involved, he ratcheted up tensions and resentments, which he sought to do again in the case of the shooting of Daunte Wright.
They released a statement all about race, proof that the country needs to reimagine policing and public safety, though they never tell us exactly what that is supposed to mean.
It's important to point out, by the way, that Wright's mother is white, so it's unclear why Obama said he was mourning with black mothers, since they didn't lose their children in this particular shooting.
Also, what would Obama have the police do?
The officer did her job, pulled over a driver who had an outstanding arrest warrant.
Seems to be suggesting that police not do their job and just let criminals freely roam the street.
Does that make any sense?
Does that solve the problem?
Michael, your thoughts?
Well, first of all, I salute the Oregonian for taking the stance that it was important to say that he was white in the current The current atmosphere, but they probably did it for the wrong reasons, just because they were afraid of people rioting if they didn't assuming it was black.
But, and I also want to salute you Jim and congratulate you for being published by the UNS Review, one of the best websites where the best writers are writing these days.
There's a guy who writes for the Unns Review who constantly covers the hypocrisy in the media and the society about black crime on whites.
His name is John Derbyshire and actually there's a second guy who writes for Unns Review and I'm very glad that Ron Unz publishes stuff like that because they're telling the truth of the situation as opposed to what our propaganda ministry does.
The story about the Obamas, you know, the first four words of that title says it all to me.
Obamas inflame racial tensions.
That's their job in this situation is race baiting.
Same thing with Maxine Waters.
Those are the race baiting front men.
And it reminds me of that famous Israel Cohen statement from the Early part of the 20th century.
I won't read the whole thing, but it starts with the sentence, we must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension.
He uses the word weapon and that's exactly what these Marxist destroyers are doing and continue to do is weaponize race in America.
Yeah, they're having a hard row to hoe, however, because America is not a racist country.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yeah, this is a complete distraction away from the big picture.
Like I was saying earlier, I think that really you should think about these corrupt politicians and when they're going to start talking about going after those type of people that have not only turned out the citizenry, have betrayed us, have committed treason, have brought in the UN agenda, or even this colonialization technocracy instead of the Constitution.
They turned it into the Georgia Guidestones.
I'd have to say those guys may be more responsible for Black deaths than anybody.
And probably the austerity that's come from the central banks and the creation of the illusion of scarcity, wage stagflation, unlivable wages, the gig economy.
None of these things are being talked about.
These things decimate more families than you can imagine and probably lead to this quote-unquote violence when these people are pretty much harnessed in slums and they're pretty much acting like cornered beasts over the social economic barrel.
I have to say that really we can look at some of these things probably first and find more
reasonable solutions than really ascribing the bland term of racism as the problem.
I think that may be a good place to start, but that's just my feelings. What do you guys think?
Well, we think you're doing a great job here of laying it out.
Meanwhile, this struck me as very odd.
Trump blasts Biden for moronic move that aids the deranged pseudoscience of those resisting vaccines.
In other words, Trump is blasting Biden for not being sufficiently aggressive in promoting vaccines, which of course we know are very bad for human beings and other living things.
He claimed the federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense.
Why is the Biden White House letting insanely risk-averse bureaucrats run the show?
Except that it's caused blood clots.
Trump is saying only six out of the nearly seven million who've got the shot have reported the blood clots.
The condition is more common in the general population and every vaccine, including every medication, carries some risk.
Including the Moderna and Pfizer jabs.
I only wish you were paying more attention to the reports we and so many other experts in this field are making.
Indeed, this moronic move is a gift to the anti-vax movement, Trump concluded.
The science bureaucrats are fueling that deranged pseudoscience.
Frankly, I find it embarrassing that Trump made this statement.
Officials have clarified the other vaccines are safe, except they are not, and the same polling has shown a majority have confidence in those vaccines, even though they ought not, even after the pause in the J&J.
Dr. Anthony Tony the Rat Fauci voiced similar concerns about the pause resulting in more hesitancy among Americans.
And here, just to confirm it, is the actual statement from the office of Donald J. Trump.
Very, very sad, in my opinion.
Michael, your thoughts?
Yeah, I was just in a conversation earlier this morning with an old friend, and we were talking about the contradictions involved in all the positions that Trump has taken over the last five years.
And this one is Especially strange in light of his earlier statements about vaccine and setting up vaccines and setting up a vaccine safety board with RFK Jr.
And especially in light of the fact that, according to some reports, his own son, Barron, is an example of a vaccine damaged person.
My friend thought that Trump had actually been The victim of sort of entrapment in as much as he got taken off guard by this whole pandemic thing and believing these people who came forward as medical experts.
So, he got entrapped into the whole pandemic thing and promoting his Warp Speed vaccine program as if it was the greatest thing that anybody had ever heard of.
And now he's he's in the hole that he himself has dug and he's not willing to back out of it.
Well, it's very, very troubling because, I mean, they have never isolated the virus, so these are not actually vaccines.
They're some kind of mRNA device that actually changes your genetics and does tremendous harm.
When we interviewed Judy Mekovitz two weeks ago, for example, my first question out of the gate was, I understand that these vaccines ...can actually weaken your immune system so next time around the body attacks itself and you die a painful death, and that they actually promote proteins that lead to mad cow disease, prions.
Judy Mickiewicz confirmed both.
I'm really embarrassed that Donald Trump is playing this role here.
And yes, I understand Barron suffered a mild form of autism because of vaccinations when he was a child.
Trump ought to know better.
Chris, your thoughts.
You ever think maybe that Trump could be getting coerced by the cure to autism perhaps by some of the forces that might be putting on this type of thing on the common man?
I thought of that as a possibility and how they could get to Trump and really transition him into this type of a henchman in this way.
It's upsetting to me to see things like warp speed and some of the comments he made or like the fast be 56 or the anti-semite laws or black right taking the treasury over a lot of things like this.
I think that Trump was sent out by APAC and CFR is kind of like part of the Quigley pendulum where he would really run his base into the rocks.
And more importantly, this transition of administrations would pretty much obfuscate accountability and blame.
I really hate to say it, I was hoping I was wrong, but I have to wonder if there's some way that he's been either compromised or has sold us out.
I hate to say this, man, but I almost think he's getting commission off a certain number of us that he can send us into doom with, and I don't know, this is...
It's beyond words, man, because I know what you're saying about the vaccine, and I agree with you completely.
You're absolutely right on, and for him to advocate any way, shape, or form that people should take this is a betrayal of wisdom, and I think he's smarter than that.
Chris, what I don't like is he has to know better, so this is very profoundly disturbing.
Yeah, I think so, man.
I don't know what else to say.
Like the Masons, man, that's what I think it is.
It's like they talk out of both sides of their mouth like that, and they really run us into the rocks as far as with logic and knowing what we want to hear, knowing what is right, and then giving us what the heck they invert and call right.
So, man.
We got to be on all cylinders at this point in time working against this takeover because it's coming from both sides.
Go ahead, Michael.
An issue like this to me is like a smoking gun that Trump's being controlled.
And I don't think it started recently.
It probably started the moment he was surprised elected.
Well, we also have the report that a cure for autism has been discovered, but Big Pharma bought it up to keep it away from the American people because they want to produce Autistic kids, where projections have it at the rate we're going by 2050, half of our children will be autistic, which appears to be desirable from the point of view of corporations who have a lot of routine repetitive jobs that autistic kids do better, more effortlessly, and with less stress and anxiety than ordinary workers.
So I'm very upset about all of this.
Yeah, I think that maybe they show the president, the idealist president, the Zapruder film, the real Zapruder film.
And that's probably all that they got to say.
They don't even got to say any other words.
And that guy probably gets it.
That's probably why Jimmy Carter comes out of these briefings crying, or Trump looks so shaken after these briefings.
I'm just saying this, this could be something.
Go ahead, Michael.
I was gonna say that's an old bill.
What is that comedian's name who died?
That's an old Bill Hicks routine, about taking the newly elected president into the room, showing him Kennedy getting his head blown off, and then asking, any questions?
Sure.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson's been doing a brilliant job lately.
Here's one of his recent about Anthony Fauci.
Check this out.
If you believe in science, and if you're grateful for vaccines, and we do and we are, then you should expect very straightforward answers to very simple questions about how they work.
And for months now, we have been asking a very straightforward question about the coronavirus vaccine.
Why do people who take it, and by the way, why do people who have been previously infected and show high levels of antibodies, have to live under the restrictions that the vaccines were supposed to eliminate?
Why, for example, does Tony Fauci say you have to wear a mask after you get the vaccine?
If we're following the science, and we sincerely hope to, we're wondering, is Fauci telling Americans who've been vaccinated, or who have recovered from the coronavirus itself, That they aren't protected against future infections?
Is that why he's saying they can't eat in restaurants or go to bars?
These are not trick questions.
They're the most basic of all questions.
We'd love to have Dr. Fauci on the show to explain them.
But we've asked him enough that he finally took notice, and this morning he went on CNN.
But he didn't answer them.
Instead, he dismissed those questions as a conspiracy theory.
And as he talked, you'll notice the graphic on the screen.
We lie!
Right.
Here's what happened.
What do you have to say to Tucker Carlson?
Yeah.
That's just a typical crazy conspiracy theory.
Why would we not tell people if it doesn't work?
Look at the data.
The data are overwhelming.
In the three vaccines that have been approved for use in an emergency use authorization, the J&J, the Pfizer, and the Moderna, you had 30,000, 44,000, and 40,000 people in a clinical trial with an overwhelming signal of efficacy.
So I don't have any idea what he's talking about.
How dangerous is it for a TV personality like that who does have an audience of millions to speculate about something like that?
Well, it's certainly not helpful to the public health of this nation or even globally.
Wait a second.
Who's doubting that vaccines work?
For the record, we never for a minute doubted it.
We bought all of that stuff completely at face value.
We believe in science.
Actually kind of probably trust the pharmaceutical companies a little bit too much.
So when they said this stuff works, we never questioned it.
We assume they had detailed studies showing that it does work.
We still think that.
The only reason we're asking the question is because the people in charge are acting like it doesn't work.
You see the President of the United States wearing a mask outside.
You see his Vice President doing the same thing.
You see the guy in charge of coronavirus response, the one you just saw, telling us that, again, after you've had the vaccine, you must remain under the restrictions.
So we're asking a question that is rooted in science, which is why?
If this stuff works, why can't you live like it works?
What are you really telling us here?
And by the way, this, again, is not a trick question.
We're not playing word games here.
What's the answer?
If the coronavirus vaccine prevents you from catching the coronavirus, why are you wearing a mask?
Why can't you eat in a restaurant?
And if it doesn't prevent you from catching the coronavirus, why are we taking it in the first place?
Both can't be true.
So that's the question.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
As an American, you should ask it, too.
If they're telling you you can't fly on a plane until you take a vaccination, which, by the way, won't allow you to live as you did in 2019, what are they saying?
Let's hope they explain it really soon, before people lose faith, not just in them, but in science itself.
And that really would be a tragedy.
Tucker is so good here.
I'm so impressed with Tucker.
He's been doing a series of brilliant Brilliant interviews.
Meanwhile, here's the ugly truth about the COVID-19 lockdown coming from the co-founder of Panda.
Panda, co-founded by Nick Hudson, is using live data and open science to empower the public to exercise freedom of choice.
He explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is the world is being needlessly crippled by fear due to a false narrative.
The pandemic response has created homo sapien phobia, the idea that everyone is dangerous until proven healthy.
Data compiled by Panda found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million.
The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed.
With looming vaccine passports, the loss of personal liberty is at an unprecedented level.
While people are generally living enslaved by fear, fear of infection or reinfection, long COVID, resurgence, and mutant variants, Hudson and his team, including a data analyst, economists, medical doctors, big data analysts, and public health experts, are using live data and open science to empower the public to exercise freedom of choice and preserve free societies.
George Washington famously said, truth will ultimately prevail where there are plans taken to bring it to light.
With that in mind, Hudson saw the seeds of a great tragedy being planted with a false COVID-19 narrative and has made it a mission to get the truth out.
Here we have some basics.
A virus that presents high risk to a few and negligible risk to most.
A few are susceptible to the severe disease.
There are several available treatments.
Asymptomatic people are not drivers of the disease.
Lockdowns and mask mandates haven't worked and instead cause great harm.
The vulnerable are hurt instead of helped.
According to Hudson, there's a fatality rate that's a number of deaths from COVID divided by the number of cases of COVID.
The 1% infection fatality is the number of deaths divided by all infected individuals.
By conflating two separate points, Tedros, the head of the World Health Organization, was effectively lying.
Based on this, the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 is lower than that of the flu, and wouldn't you know it?
In a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published on March 26, 2020, Anthony Fauci himself wrote, The overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.
The media have suppressed this fact.
Meanwhile, we have a COVID-19 Solidary Response Fund for the World Health Organization raised, guess what, over $7 million.
And the United Nations is an organizer.
This is truly outrageous, because they're promoting a false story about COVID and the deaths associated there, too.
We know the lockdowns bring about higher suicide rates, domestic violence, derailed education, shorter lifespans, and decreased public health services.
That's all well known, but the mainstream media won't report it and won't inform the public of any serious truth about what's taking place.
Michael, your thoughts?
Well, starting with the Tucker video, it's a simple and obvious logic that he's stating there.
Nothing more.
I was actually moderately surprised that Fox ownership allows him to say those things about the vaccine and the ill logic that they're being I'm glad that they do.
My personal revulsion when I see Tony the Rat Fauci talking these days, I mean, it's grown over this last year, that revulsion cannot be overstated.
It reminds me of the old adage, sometimes, well, the old adage is, how do you know a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
People put different things in there, like lawyer.
If you put Fauci in there, how do you know Fauci is lying?
I think that adage is literally true.
That's a terrific statement, video statement by that guy named Nick Hudson in that video.
It was, as far as I was aware of it, it was first carried by the Mercola website, which continues to buck the system no matter how much heat comes down on Joseph Mercola's head.
And I was glad that he made a point of calling out the asymptomatic transmission principle because that's a prime cornerstone in this COVID-19 false propaganda.
There have been huge studies since then over the last year showing that asymptomatic transmission is not happening at all, but it doesn't get the press, because then why the hell are we socially distancing and keeping kids out of school and all sorts of stuff?
And also, in that Nick Hudson presentation, he pointed out the conflation, intentional no doubt, of the case fatality rate and the infection fatality rate as being basically lying with statistics.
And I want to plug that reminded me of a principle that I just read.
See this book.
Yes, virus mania.
Great book, it's a, it takes many of the The false narratives that Big Pharma has put on us over the years, like measles, swine flu, cervical cancer, avian flu, SARS, hepatitis C, AIDS, polio, Spanish flu, they blamed all of those on an elusive
And the forward to this book points out that there's a pattern that they use when they put these phony pandemics on the people.
It always ends in great profits for them, of course, and it's a five-step process.
Great comments, Michael, yes.
The fourth one in that five-step program is to manipulate the epidemiology statistics with
non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of imminent catastrophe.
I recommend this book highly.
Great comments, Michael.
Yes. Tony, the rat will go down as a greatest mass murderer in world history.
Chris, your thoughts.
Yeah, I believe that many of these things that are being called vaccines are an abuse of language and linguistics completely.
I think that these are like mRNA nano autoimmunal operating systems that are going to serve as a Trojan horse to self-destruct your own immune system against itself.
And I think these people are pretty much just going to sit back and watch it happen and sell you different things.
Uh, in terms of accessories and medical industries, uh, for the quote unquote solution, which will in no way, shape or form be the solution, but it will be something that you'll spend your last dollar on.
So, man, these guys are terrible what they're doing to people in the face of hope and in the face of medical treatment under the guise of such, I should say.
Uh, yeah, Bannon's right.
Fauci and Gates, they both, uh, should have their heads on a pike somewhere because, This whole transition into the masked VAX ID passport nanotech operating system is disgusting and it can't be proven.
It seems to be nothing more than a Niall Ferguson simulation where they're saying they're saving these people from something that is arguably non-existent or needs a PCR test with an 85% degree of inaccuracy to prove that it exists.
So yeah, I think that many of these things that are going on are part of a MKUltra meets Operation Mockingbird meets Operation Phoenix where they're pushing these official narratives.
And even Tucker kind of reaffirms these official narratives in his own way, where he talks about vaccines or COVID or masks being things that you should in fact Follow these guys on to.
I don't watch him enough to know his position on all this stuff, but from the clip that I saw, that seemed to be what he was saying.
So, uh, yeah, I really don't trust these, these mainstream media guys at all.
I think that they are all groomed by the intelligence services and part of this.
So I think they're all in on it together.
And, um, that's maybe just another giveaway from what I was able to see.
So.
They question the obvious flaws in the logic, of course, because they have to, but for the most part, I mean, because they'd hemorrhage credibility if they didn't, right?
But they do have to really toe the line or reaffirm or bring it back onto the path that they lay out for you or that they're supposed to bring it back onto.
Yeah, things like you're saying Fats, with them quarantining the healthy, you know, decimating the small businesses and even the social contract and actually the trust in terms of authority.
Yeah, this is really an assault on the character and the confidence of this country and it's It's everything that it stands for and it's been a complete debasement and they're still charging us taxes for the roads and for the schools and for these lockdown procedures and even together 352 billion dollars in the last stimulus package for propaganda on quote-unquote vaccine safety, which to me seems to be an oxymoron or at least a contradiction in terms.
So yeah, I'm a little upset about what's going on here and how we're paying for this stuff and I think it's pretty disturbing.
Well, in defense of Tucker, he's done a reductio.
If you assume the vaccines are legitimate, and most of the public is going to find it impossible to deny.
Either they work or they don't work.
And if they work, why should we have to wear masks and social distance thereafter?
And if they don't work, why should we take them anyway?
So I think he's actually performing a great public service.
He has a huge audience.
Yeah, no, fair play.
Yeah, I don't watch Tucker enough.
I just seen that footage.
That was it.
So I was like I was saying that was why I commented on that.
Yeah, good point.
And Michael, Tucker is a mainstay of Fox News now.
They just expanded him to three daily shows in addition to his nighttime shows five days a week.
So they are all in with Tucker and I think appropriately so.
Meanwhile, We have Kamala and Joe embarrassing America during a visit by the Japanese Prime Minister.
It was a complete and utter embarrassment for the Biden administration.
Why is Harris welcoming the PM to the White House instead of Biden?
Japanese PM Yoshihide Suga was the first world leader to visit the White House since Biden's installation, and the poor form began with no one greeting the head of the government upon arrival.
When you consider the last-minute narrative about stopping Asian hate, there's a rather ironic aspect to this visit in snob.
Once he was inside the White House, he was shunned for the greeting by his diplomatic peer, Joe Biden.
Instead, Kamala Harris was dispatched to deliver introductory remarks.
Beyond the inappropriate form, the subtle mess, as I've called Hump, Kamala being the acting head of the executive branch, was on display.
When she was sent down to greet the Japanese Prime Minister, moreover, she spent more than a full minute trashing the U.S.' 's a violent place as he stood next to her, awaiting his introduction.
Good morning!
I briefly want to discuss a tragedy that occurred in Indianapolis last night.
She went on and on, ranting for more than a full minute, and then finally welcoming him.
And Joe says, you got a Japanese boy coming over here to win the Masters!
I mean, how awkward and embarrassing does it get?
Did Kamala try to blow him, someone writes?
I think this captures the idea exactly to what's going on here.
Meanwhile, Canada is officially a police state encouraging snitching and prohibiting all non-essential travel.
Police in Ontario can now stop and ask anyone on the street or in cars why they're not at home and ask for their address.
How embarrassingly bad.
How god-awful is that?
Michael, your thoughts?
Yeah, I think these people have no idea what they're doing.
They just show up in a place and somebody gives them instructions of what to do.
The fact that Kamala uses this situation to promote gun fear and gun control, that's just insane!
But it's also very enlightening for people with ears to hear as to what the Agenda is and they don't really care about, about good relationships with other countries.
And what was the other thing?
Oh yeah, calling the winner of the Masters, the first Japanese man to ever win the Masters, or I think any... Japanese boy!
Yeah, that's what I was getting to.
The fact that he called him a boy.
Ah, geez.
What can you say?
That's just, you know, it's demented ignorance.
It's pathetic and embarrassing, and I think that cartoon's actually captured it exactly.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yes, very unsettling.
Culture crash, culture crash.
Yeah, this is probably one of the more bigger diplomatic gaps with the Japanese going back to maybe Bush when he threw up all over the Prime Minister back in 91.
That'd probably be the last time I think they had something maybe a little bit more dishonorable than that.
Yeah, Kamala Harris, she was looking like she was doing what she normally does outside that party store.
And I love that Newport tracksuit on Joe Biden, that's pretty sweet with the cornrows there.
So whoever did that, good work.
I think that's pretty interesting.
And like you guys were saying with that Rob Ford or is it Tom Ford or whatever his brother's name is, He's another buffoon that's part of an insider group of political operatives who was just put there to really underserve the public and to serve as a gaffe, something to laugh at in terms of comedic reference, but to deliver nothing in terms of public service.
Just like his brother was, you know, I mean, when he's not walking reporters into open manhole covers or pushing ladies off the curb with his gut, you know, or smoking crack on a porch with With the inner city minorities, this is what they're doing.
So arguably speaking, this is probably what you're looking at.
And I'd have to say that each town, each city, each state, every country on earth probably has some of these political insiders that are groomed to be in the positions they are and are probably controlled by these very controllable mechanisms and extorted and manipulated in the way that they are.
Well, sad to say the United States has become an embarrassment in the eyes of the world.
We are a laughing stock.
Kamala and Joe.
Meanwhile, we have 1,500 rabbis coming to Tucker Carlson's defense as the ADL calls for his firing.
This is pretty fascinating.
The ADL suggested Fox News host Tucker Carlson should be yanked for the effort supporting what it called a white supremacist tenant.
Now 1,500 rabbis have come to defend Tucker and criticize the ADL.
Tucker raised the possibility Democrats are allowing mass immigration in order to win more votes.
He's not suggesting there's a race problem, but a voting rights problem.
I know the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement.
If you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace a current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world, but they become hysterical because that's what's happening.
Actually, let's just say it.
That's true.
He concluded that while critics want to make it a racial issue, the fact people who refuse to follow our laws are being let into the country and given special privileges is a voting right question.
He happens to be correct that importing non-citizens, allowing them to vote, dilutes the voting power of American citizens.
He never mentioned anything about the race of the voters.
He never implied that only white people should have power.
Instead, he suggested American citizens of all races should have voting power, and non-citizens of all races should not.
That seems like a pretty fair conclusion.
Nevertheless, the leftists don't like it when they hear this and try to paint Tucker as a bad guy.
Media Matters, for example, the radical leftist organization supposedly dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S.
media, immediately concluded Carlson was defending white replacement theory.
This lie was parroted by leftists on Twitter.
Here's an example.
Tucker Carlson gives a passionate defense of white replacement theory.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO and director of the ADL, decided Carlson was a racist for presenting a point of view he did not like and therefore should be taken off the air.
Replacement theory is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites.
It is anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic.
It has informed the ideology of mass shooters in El Paso, Christchurch, and Pittsburgh.
Talker must go.
Let me add, by the way, I have investigated the shootings in El Paso, Christchurch, and Pittsburgh, and they were all fake.
Totally fake.
The Jerusalem Post explained white replacement theory is made it clear that was not what he was arguing.
The conspiracy theory that Jews are orchestrating a great replacement of white Westerners with non-white immigrants is popular among white supremacists and fueled the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, among other attacks.
Carlson never suggested Jewish people were responsible for orchestrating this.
He never ever said white people are the ones who should be voting.
He just said American citizens shouldn't be replaced by non-citizens.
In response to the ADL's criticism, the Jewish Coalition for Jewish Values wrote a letter supported by 1,500 Orthodox rabbis.
Calling Greenblatt's characterization of Tucker as a white supremacist grossly misplaced.
Alas, the ADL has become markedly partisan under your leadership, said the letter shared with the Jerusalem Post.
Your organization published a guide naming the hate, which features obscure neo-Nazis of the alt-right, yet says nothing regarding far more dangerous leftist adherents of radical Islam.
The coalition accused the ADL of actively hiding the facts about anti-Semitic hate in America.
Michael, your thoughts?
Tucker's not backing down from the ADL when they first attacked him over mentioning the replacement word is probably the best thing I can think of that I've heard Tucker do.
A 20-minute rebuttal of what they were saying, in which he actually called them out for their obvious hypocrisy over what they promote here, over against what they promote in Israel.
And that's just excellent stuff.
Along with what Chris was saying earlier, he has to stay within certain boundaries in order to stay on the air, even so.
And the boundary in this case is that he had to leave it and restrict it to the context of replacement of the electorate Republican conservative voters were being replaced and he specifically denied that it had anything to do with race, but But, if you know the history and you read between the lines, the real agenda is, in fact, the white race replacement as specified in the Kudenhof-Kalergi plan back in the 1920s.
Again, Kevin MacDonald, who is a terrific analyst and writer of these things, wrote another article published at the Unns Review that I refer everybody to about this back and forth between Tucker and the ADL.
It's a great piece.
The thing about the 1,500 rabbis coming to the defense of Tucker, that's a great story and it's a terrific case in point For the fact that the Jewish community does not consist solely of Zionist New World Order minions.
There's a lot of diversity there, and a lot of Jews who are working against that Zionist New World Order, the same as we are.
I agree with all that.
Of course, the ADL has also objected to Palestinian immigration into Israel because the Palestinians reproduce at a more rapid rate and it dilutes the Jewish state.
They've made that argument, which is, of course, precisely parallel to the point that Tucker is making, perhaps in a more subtle fashion.
But there's no doubt about what's going on here.
And frankly, I have video showing convoys bringing these immigrants up to our southern border in trucks, where on the door of the truck is the Star of David.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yeah, great points, both you guys.
Yeah, Mike, I agree with you.
There are some factions within Judaism that are resisting this New World Order takeover.
The Orthodox, absolutely, and many other idealists within the other ranks.
So, yeah, not all Jews are behind this.
I definitely agree there.
But there does seem to be a Judeo-Masonic connection, a cabal, a leadership that has departmentalized this hostile takeover of the world, this technocracy, this neo-feudalism that they've got in plan, this socioeconomic sorcery.
Whether you call it the Kalergi Plan, the Oded Yinnan, the Protocols of Elders of Zion, the UN Takeover, the Perbride Event 201, 9-11 stuff, One Belt One Road, Iron Mountain, PNAC, any of these type of agendas, these are all things, and I could probably name 25 more, that were put in to deliver what we're seeing now, and this has been a long-term goal for this takeover of American constitutional liberty and replacing it with what we're seeing here, this UN Georgia Guidestones type of outline. So yeah, I think the
ADL as far as I'm concerned, I know Tucker can't come out and say this because he has a base
that he has to appeal to and he has probably Jewish owners of the network that he probably
wouldn't have a job with if he ever said this. He does. Yeah, so I understand that.
I do get that part, but that's why I don't watch mainstream media, of course.
But I will say, in the freedom of the independent media, that the ADL has been behind many things since its inception back in the days of World War I, or just before that, with many things in conjunction with the FBI and with the money and interest, the Federal Reserve banking institutions, to deliver things, domestic terrorism, as well as the optic of public relations and public service through these, you know, inversions and absurdities.
They were behind things like the PatCon conspiracy, trying to entrap Americans into some sort of an operation, or even, you know, the JTTF after 9-11, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or COINTELPROGRAM, or many of the neo-Nazi things that were put out, and they were really like entrapments or sting operations in the 90s, and even in the 40s and 50s.
So these guys have a long track record of really Trying to provoke a certain demographic and then appeal to the demographic through other means clandestinely so that they can not only serve as a lightning rod to this righteous outrage, but then to really control it to wet blanket it or dampen it down or to run it into an entrapment situation like you typically see with with most of these things.
And it does a great thing.
It justifies the FBI's budget.
They look like they're stopping crime and all this stuff, but in reality, they're going after anybody who's an idealist that will really not stand for this takeover.
And they're being labeled as domestic terrorists or extremists or racist white nationalists or something like that.
Anti-Semites.
Nice.
Very nice.
Thanks.
Comprehensive.
Meanwhile, on The Oods Review, as Michael remarked, I published What's Wrong With Conspiracy Theories.
Notice this photograph well.
The public has been fed an endless stream of attacks on conspiracy theories, which we are told are very bad for human beings and other living things.
Precisely why, however, is almost never explained when you consider our parties and mainstream indulge themselves in conspiracy theories such as that Rush interfered with a 2016 election.
Otherwise, Donald Trump could never have been elected, or alternatively, That Dominion voting machines were used to steal the election of 2020 and otherwise he would not have been defeated are in the first instance promoted by the media in spite of virtually no evidence at all and in the second denied thereby in spite of massive supporting group.
Both are conspiracy theories where one appears to be true and the other appears to be false.
Since at least some conspiracy theories thus appear to be true, we need to be able to tell the difference.
Even university professors have shown a decided aversion.
A tip sheet for one college, for example, makes a declaration.
The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it's wrong, but that it's inarguable.
Not that it's false, but that it's unfalsifiable.
Because it's unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.
If that were true, of course, that would certainly count against him, making them akin to theoretical affirmations of the existence of God, which is neither provable nor disprovable, or the existence of the Force, a la Star Wars.
But is it actually true?
An alternative study in Frontiers of Psychology, what about Building 7, suggests those who are often characterized as conspiracy theorists are actually more skeptical of what they're told by the government than they are enamored of specific alternatives, that they're more open-minded in the interpretation of evidence.
They are less inclined to defer to officials as authorities and more inclined to look at the evidence.
Which even hints a study of alternative theories of events like 9-11 might be an effective method to teach critical thinking.
Since conspiracies only require two or more persons acting in concert to bring about an illegal end, it turns out to be the most widely prosecuted criminal offense in America.
Why should conspiracy theories be all but banned from public discourse?
We know the criteria to employ in the evaluation of scientific theories.
Why should they not be evaluated by the same standard or criteria of adequacy which classically include the clarity and precision of the language in which they're formulated, their scope of application for explanation and prediction, their respective degrees of empirical support on the available evidence, and the economy, elegance, or simplicity with which they satisfy those conditions?
Since conspiracy theories are theories, why should they not be evaluated by the same criteria, where the testability of a theory depends right off the bat on the specificity of its language?
When, for example, Ilhan Omar talks about how on 9-11 somebody did something, that's True, but it's also trivial.
When, however, we get an account from the government that 19 Islamic terrorists commandeered four aircraft and perpetrated those atrocities under the command of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan, we have something far more amenable to being tested and evaluated and confirmed or disconfirmed.
Various accounts of scientific reasoning posit a series of stages of inquiry and puzzlement.
Something doesn't fit into your background knowledge and invites attention.
Speculation.
Alternative possible explanations are articulated for consideration.
Adaptation.
The strength of the relationship between the hypotheses and the available evidence is evaluated in explanation.
Where, when the evidence has settled down, the best supporter of the alternatives may be accepted in the tentative and fallible fashion of science.
It may be apparent already the official account cannot be reconciled with available evidence, where, as David Ray Griffin makes as his very first point in his magisterial work, the 9-11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, That a half a dozen or more of these guys, these suicide hijackers, turn up alive and well the following day.
Here we have the key to why some prominent conspiracy theorists are relatively easy targets of attack.
Alex Jones, for example, is excellent at puzzlement and speculation, but he doesn't have the aptitude or ability to carry investigation further.
We're sorting out the difference between authentic and fabricated evidence can play a crucial role.
At the Pentagon, for example, A key piece of fuselage from a Boeing 757, shown above, which the media has frequently cited, did not come from Flight 77, but from an earlier crash near Cali, Colombia in 1995, where the salvage was done by an Israeli firm and then planted on the lawn that day as proof a plane had crashed there.
When Ilhan Omar made that observation, the remark qualifies as true but trivial.
When the commission concludes 19 Islamic terrorists commandeered four commercial carriers, their testability has increased substantially.
The government's not been disposed to revise its official narrative, even though a half a dozen or more of the 19 suicide hijackers turned up alive and well the following day.
And when considerations given to Building 7, a 47-story building in the World Trade Center complex, which was not hit by any plane but came down in what has been characterized as a classic controlled demolition, it raises the specter of a conspiracy theory, even though its collapse has the characteristics of having been a controlled demolition, abrupt, complete, symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, Leaving a debris pile equal to about 12% of the height of the original, where even the owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, confirmed to PBS that WTC7 had been pulled.
Nothing about this account violates any of the conditions of adequacy 1 through 4.
What matters, however, is not the specifics of whodunit, but that the situation regarding conspiracy theories is not as all as popular belief would have it.
Not only are they not unfalsifiable, but scientific reasoning applied thereto has produced significant results leading to the identification of the probable perps.
The striking illustration of the difference it makes for public affairs, moreover, may be found in the attacks on Marjorie Taylor Greene, whom the Democrats as a majority party removed from our committee assignments because she was raising too many issues they did not want to address about Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas, California wildfires, and more.
Having done research on all of these, I composed an assessment where it turns out that on every one of the issues about which she was being attacked, Marjorie Taylor Greene was either clearly in the right or supported by the weight of the evidence.
Most of her assertions, of course, qualified in the mind of her critics as conspiracy theories.
But if they paused to consider the evidence with regard to each of them, they would have been impressed, provided only they had an open mind.
And there's the rub.
As James Files, who may or may not have been behind the picket fence on the Grassy Nolan Forum, When the government commits a lie, it's stuck with it, which of course resonates with the failure of the government to change its position about the 19 Islamic hijackers on 9-11, or Lee Oswald and the lone demented government on 22 November 1963, even though we've established that the evidence implicating him was fabricated and that Lee was actually standing in the doorway of the book depository when the JFK motorcade passed by.
Which means that, in turn, the government is not operating on the basis of principles of science or of rationality, where the discovery of new evidence or alternative hypotheses may require we reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
The government operates as an authoritarian source of politically infallible knowledge where to admit mistakes would weaken its grip on the body politics that it governed.
And reflecting upon the treatment of Marjorie Taylor Greene, it struck me like a silver bullet Conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes.
No wonder they want to silence us.
The government was involved in the assassination of JFK.
The government was involved in 9-11.
The government was involved in Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Las Vegas, too.
Think of the genius of it all.
The perps themselves are in the position of dictating to the public who is credible and who is not when it comes to investigating crimes in which the government itself is complicit.
It turns out, therefore, the answer to the question we ask, what's wrong with conspiracy theories, could not be more obvious.
Once they are properly understood, we should all be conspiracy theorists.
The nation can only benefit from sorting out true conspiracy theories from false.
Michael, your thoughts?
Wow, that article speaks for itself.
I really can't add anything to what you've written there on the subject of conspiracy theories, Jim.
And I want to say that that article, should people want to spend some more time with it, is available at your personal website, jamesfetzer.org, and also at unz.com.
You're the man, Jim, with regard to logic and evidence and drawing logical conclusions from that.
Evidence and I'm honored to be working with you.
So I only have one question.
And I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
That's an inside joke for the people.
Yes, yes, yes.
I appreciate that very much.
Actually, Mike Palachuk, my series editor, suggested that title after we published Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
That one might respond to that title by saying, yeah, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
Great title.
Of course we did not.
We did not.
Chris, your thoughts?
So I suppose COVID's not a real thing either?
I suppose the vaccine's not a real thing either?
I mean, Jesus Christ, everything they, it's like just a Gollum enterprise after another, a complete and total bloat, or a Ponzi scheme.
Yeah, Mad Lib, you know, where they just keep going down with it.
Every generation, every administration's got some new fab, fabulous extortion tactic that they need to put on.
It's not that they can come out and say, all right, 9-11 happened because you didn't pay enough in taxes, or COVID didn't happen because you didn't pay enough in health insurance.
No, these are things that, you know, they make understood but not discussed, and ultimately the goal of some of these things.
But like you say, or like Jim Pfau says, many of these things add up.
You know, they got to stick with these lies they're stuck with, and in the face of these lies, with this immense track record, this abundant history, each one is like setting an individual domino up, and it just leaves a trail.
And really, when you understand that all of these are put up by deception and misdirection, pretty much the dominoes fall in an instant, and you pretty much see what you're dealing with here.
Yeah, I think you and many others have been a national treasure in terms of standing in the face of the official narrative and asking good, honest, righteous questions and calling bullshit when they really try to dodge those questions.
So great on you guys.
Well, I appreciate all your comments here.
We want to hear from you.
Send fan mail, pro or con, to liveneedtoknowatgmail.com.
Liveneedtoknowatgmail.com.
Notice here, it turns out, when they test you for swabs, they already know the predetermined conclusion.
They have positive control swabs and negative control swabs.
A nurse discovered this.
Why is the left okay with a COVID-19 ID card, but they fight so hard against a voter ID to secure our elections?
Here's a suggestion come to me that the change in Biden's ear may be from putting in some kind of earpiece here So I think that's a fascinating possible alternative explanation for switching from the pendineur lobe to this, but I still believe these are two different guys on multiple grounds.
Their handwriting is different, their handedness is different, and a host of other differences we previously reviewed.
Meanwhile, go to falsifiedconspiracies2020.com, download as many or all of the 24 presentations there as you like, all free, available to the public.
Remember, the secret of freedom lies in educating people, the secret of tyranny in keeping them ignorant.
Our final thoughts, Michael, yours.
I want to point out and recommend an article about a Stanford study that was done back in in January of 2021, just a couple of months ago.
Quite an extensive, good study.
And it was on the total worthlessness, the absolute ineffectiveness of wearing face masks.
And what do you know, it didn't make the mainstream news, or much if I'm aware of it at all.
And another interesting thing about that study is that it was published on the NCBI website, which is a division of Tony the Rat Fauci's NIH.
And it's great.
It's called Stanford Study Proves Face Masks Are Absolutely Worthless.
And as a closing thought, I wanted to read a quote from a journalist, Tom Moran, who's talking about what's happening to us when we hand over our rights to bodily integrity.
It goes like this.
Autonomy over one's own body is absolute.
It's one of the most fundamental rights in a civilized society.
So important is this autonomy that it even extends beyond our own death.
Our organs may only be harvested with our prior consent.
Any medical intervention that is for the benefit of society, with no conceivable benefit for the individual, must always be voluntary.
The rights, freedoms, and opportunities conferred on an individual in society should never be contingent on participation in such an act.
The fact that the right of an individual to assess personal risk and prioritize their own quality of life is now being derided as something heinous, selfish, is dangerous, and inhumane.
Oh, and it's a dangerous and inhumane development.
The idea that your physical body belongs to the state and that you have no right to make your own decisions about what is to be done to it is nothing short of slavery.
Very nice.
Chris, your final thoughts?
Wow uh you know I started thinking about uh you know some of the injuries that are going to come from the vaccine and stuff and how Hollywood and the mainstream media are portraying this.
Imagine if they actually portrayed in the amount of numbers and statistics the 1 in 25 of the movies that they put out or the stories they did in the media talking about the people that were injured from many of these vaccines and the families that have had to deal with these injuries and raising somebody who's been disabled by them.
Imagine if they actually reported on these things in the same proportion to which they occur in reality.
Imagine if they did the same thing with LGBTQ or some of these weaponized demographics they're trying to turn into political weapons.
If these were representing themselves in terms of their actual reality, they wouldn't be in every dang Hollywood movie that's out there.
They would be in one in a hundred, right?
But that's just something to think about.
And many other things to think about the way people are conditioned through Hollywood is the reaction to, like you're saying, everyone's an expert.
They got their own reality in terms of risk assessment or risk appraisal in terms of these quote-unquote outbreaks.
And in this case, it seems to be nothing more than the flu.
It can't be isolated.
PCR test, 85% degree accuracy or false positive, I should say.
You know, this is A metric that is an unprovable one.
It's almost like an inquisition tactic or a witch hunt.
An indefinite parameter that is being quantified in a manner that is really incalculable or should be incalculable, but is being used for the sake of political gain and economic extortion.
And the price that we're paying with this is not only our economic liberty, our constitutional rights, our natural laws, But just the social contract, the reason for civilization in the first place.
If you're not going to look after the elderly, the women, the children from this type of evil, then I don't think you really deserve to have much of a right to claim to live in a social situation like we're seeing.
And I think that many of the stuff we're seeing is part of a test from the elites, like a Stanford experiment in terms of how we respond to this trauma and criteria and this limbic emergency reactions that we're seeing.
So, yeah, I think that the people that are putting this mass hysteria and this environment out there need to be really looked at and need to be considered as criminal for what they're doing.
Well, it's a joy for me to participate with Michael Ivey of Asheville, North Carolina, and Chris Weinert from Detroit, Michigan.
I originally drafted the article about Conspiracy theories for a philosophy journal, for a philosophy audience, because philosophers offer courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
But the Journal of Philosophy declined to consider it on two different occasions, so I felt I should reach out to the public at large.
If you want to understand what's going on, you have to understand the nature of conspiracies and, therefore, the nature of conspiracy theories and how to think through the application of scientific principles of reasoning.
Given my background in the history and the philosophy of science, I was in the perfect position to do it, and I've been devoting myself to this as my primary objective since my retirement in 2006.
Take advantage of what you have there.
Go to jamesfetzer.org or The N's Review and pay attention here, because you need to understand what's going on.
As I've said so many times, I do this in the belief Americans are entitled to know the truth about their own history.
Thank you for joining us.
▲
Export Selection